To your point about services reduction, I don't agree. I think more of a re-allocation of where capitol is going is the cure. We should increase or create new social programs that incentivize native births, home ownership, making it possible for most households to have just one person in the workforce, etc - and reduce the money that goes towards foreign wars, foreign agitation, welfare for nations across the world, etc. And I agree, tax hikes but targeted at the financial system which makes money in parasitic ways. In short, the economy needs to be optimized to the benefit of the lower and middle classes, the working class, and no longer to the 1%. This all probably requires heavy nationalization of banking and major industry. I dont see this as an evil and mistrust those that tell me to fear putting the power back in the hands of the people and away from the elite.
<< And I agree, tax hikes but targeted at the financial system which makes money in parasitic ways. In short, the economy needs to be optimized to the benefit of the lower and middle classes, the working class, and no longer to the 1%. This all probably requires heavy nationalization of banking and major industry. I dont see this as an evil and mistrust those that tell me to fear putting the power back in the hands of the people and away from the elite.
I disagree. The only way to even begin thinking about selling it to the public, which happens to include moneyed interests is 'shared sacrifice' ( similar to how a war effort would be sold ). In pure mathematical terms, we really should be doing both already. We don't because things did not get bad enough yet, but once it starts, it will be a little hard to stop. Shock therapy is necessary to get things under control. And the longer we wait pretending it can be 'managed', the worse it will be later on.
<< I think more of a re-allocation of where capitol is going is the cure.
From where to where? I don't automatically disagree, but 'entitlements'(depending on how you define them ) are somewhat protected from touching and 'defense' is even harder. Re-allocation is not going to happen, because even current allocation was a result of heavy compromises.
I disagree based on the information provided so far. If you have math to back up either point, please share. Right now, we are still running US on continuing resolutions suggesting that balanced budget now is just not possible. Something is wrong and it needs to be corrected before it gets much worse.
> … is shared sacrifice similar to how a war effort is sold.
You actually posed a solution here not a disproof. Yes all this requires selling changes to the public and under a social message. One doesn’t need math to know this, it is intuitively true.
> from where to where
I already answered this.
> re-allocation is not going to happen because even the current allocation was a result of heavy compromise.
So anything that requires compromise cannot be undone? I’m not tracking your logic here.
I think you are looking for more evidence to backup my suggestion. See 1930s Germany as example where this model was followed and resulted in one of the greatest economic turnarounds of all time.
> inb4 muh nazis and Holocaust
Doesn’t disprove the economic turnaround that transpired.
<< So anything that requires compromise cannot be undone? I’m not tracking your logic here.
I am convinced, just about anything can be done given enough effort, time and money. That said, how much of those would have to be expended to undo current compromise status quo? I personally would venture a lot more than most people would be willing to give in exchange.
<< See 1930s Germany as example[..]
Um.. yes, because US just happened to fund that recovery ( and of entire western Europe ) via Marshall Plan. Who, exactly will fund US recovery? I am not sure if you noticed, but central banks have been looking around for an alternative to USD[1] so further debt binge may not be an actual option soon.
This brings me to the original point. Drastic measures will eventually need to be taken. If those are taken now, they will be much less painful.
<< inb4 muh nazis and Holocaust Doesn’t disprove the economic turnaround that transpired.
I am not sure this adds much to the conversation. I will ignore it for unless you think it is relevant. If so, please elaborate.
Eh, the US didn’t fund the German recovery. I think you seem to be confusing pre WW2 Germany (30s) and post war Germany (50s). The German state before national socialism was having hyper inflation, spiraling unemployment and a failing economy. The national socialists created one of the greatest economic recoveries of all time. It took the entire western world plus Russia to conquer it.
Post war Germany was hallowed out and the nation is a husk of what it once was, basically a US vassal state.
Then, sadly, you are even more wrong than before when I gave you the benefit of the doubt. 30s Germany got their stuff under control for reasons that are kinda frowned upon these days ( actual fascism - as in convergence of state control and private sector, waging war and annexing parts of Europe for lebensraum, removing from society perceived outsiders, dissidents and other undesirables and so on ). I would like to think you are not suggesting those solutions implemented.
If you would like to rebut, please give me the 'good policies', 30s Germany implemented. I worry that may you have the 'national socialism' part confused at best.
<< Post war Germany was hallowed out and the nation is a husk of what it once was, basically a US vassal state.
Somewhat accurate. How would explain the Nordstream debacle then?
edit: I decided to pre-empt it a little. I am not interested in discussing whether fascism was left or right wing ideology. I had this argument before it gets ridiculous fast. I am going to bow out should it happen here.
<< Then the system propaganda has worked fully. You police your own speech.
I will expand a little on the why so as not to look like I am being difficult. I am actively avoiding the conversation I mentioned not because of propaganda, fear thereof, its impact or even because I police my own speech. I avoid it because it is largely pointless. For better or worse, both major parties in US noted that you can make anything work well if you compare the other team to nazis. For that reason and that reason alone, you will see constant bickering whether fascism is a left or right wing ideology, which manages to completely miss the point, because it does not rely on two poles of US politics ( that likes to keep things simple for people ) for its origin. It is like trying to put a square in a round box. It can be done, but nuance will be lost.
<< Why not? Cause the current ruling class frowns up it?
No. Because it is a bad idea. It is difficult to put in words how bad an idea it is, but I will say this. For all my beef with current system, at least it has a degree of predictability and stability to it, which is more than most periods that came before it. It is pretty selfish, but I would like that state to continue for as long as possible. Proposed solutions will not make for a stable society.
> For better or worse, both major parties in US noted that you can make anything work well if you compare the other team to nazis.
Agreed, I think this serves a common purpose as other generalized propaganda on the subject. The idea is to poison the well concerning any good-faith discussion of national socialism such that people self-moderate and dismiss the idea prima facie. In this very thread, I pointed to the economic recovery in pre-WW2 Germany which was undeniably facilitated by a shift to nationalist, socialist policies. When I did, you dismissed the idea immediately due to "facism" - announcing you'd withdraw from the conversation if indeed national socialism was the topic.
> No. Because it is a bad idea. It is difficult to put in words how bad an idea it is.
Precisely, I've seen this pattern time and time again. It is prima facie a bad idea, but proof cannot be articulated. In such cases, the fallback is often (not accusing you of this) to attack the person suggesting the idea rather than the idea itself (ad hominem). I agree predictability and stability are ideal characteristics, but only in scenarios where there are other positive characteristics. Predictable and stable misery is a pretty bad state to be in. I think we can agree that the current system has many faults. One of these faults, I think, is that the system has optimized the wealth and opportunity for a very few in number. I believe the nation requires a shift in philosophy away from globalist, hyper individualism, and towards an inward looking (nationalist) stance that optimizes the wellbeing of the people (socialism). Such a shift in national philosophy, as was seen in pre-WW2 Germany, has shown an ability to correct for the excesses and decay of a globalist and individual culture, improving the outlook dramatically for the citizens. By many measures (num of children, unemployment, inflation, wealth, life expectancy) national socialism improved Germany dramatically.
